From: "Robert Comer" 

Yes.

- Bob Comer


"Ellen K"  wrote in message
news:e09bc1.d18613{at}harborwebs.com...
> It comes with a version of DB2?
>
>> From: "Robert Comer" 
>> I'm moving away from MS SQL Server, so it really doesn't matter.
>> It's not because MS SQL Server is bad, it's just that the AS/400's DB is
>> better and I already have that, so SQL Server is a redundant extra cost.
>> - Bob Comer
>> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> news:b1n4b1d8q4hcpmtofa068eavu1l7gefqq0{at}4ax.com...
>>> Well, Standard is very cost-effective.   :)
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:23:22 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>>>  wrote in message
>>> :
>>>
>>>>> The other thing to bear in mind is that you may not
need Enterprise.
>>>>> Enterprise is currently needed if you want to use the
prebuilt log
>>>>> shipping or clustering, or more than 2 CPUs or more
than 4 GB RAM. I
>>>>> think you also need Enterprise for indexed views (what
Oracle calls
>>>>> materialized views).  If you want log shipping on
Standard you can
>>>>> RYO.
>>>>> I'm using Standard on all my current databases, and
it's about 1/4 the
>>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>>> We wouldn't need any of those, so no need for enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ellen K." 
wrote in message
>>>> news:cm73b1loqb99g2ngkpn4bk8pdv0j6h9opl{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> The other thing to bear in mind is that you may not
need Enterprise.
>>>>> Enterprise is currently needed if you want to use the
prebuilt log
>>>>> shipping or clustering, or more than 2 CPUs or more
than 4 GB RAM.  I
>>>>> think you also need Enterprise for indexed views (what
Oracle calls
>>>>> materialized views).  If you want log shipping on
Standard you can
>>>>> RYO.
>>>>> I'm using Standard on all my current databases, and
it's about 1/4 the
>>>>> cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> For 2005 they are coming out with another level I
forget the name of
>>>>> that's between Standard and Enterprise but is only slightly more
>>>>> expensive than the current Standard (I think list is
$6K vs $5K for
>>>>> the
>>>>> current Standard), it has failover clustering, up to I
think 4 CPUs,
>>>>> and
>>>>> as much RAM as your O/S allows.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:36:42 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>>>>>  wrote in message
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> So it wouldn't make sense here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Bob Comer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Cuccia"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nr23b1l8rm1mrth1jm9tvj5mc6tvu34tpv{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:22:38 -0400,
"Robert Comer"
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for per-user, I can't imagine going
per-user on a production
>>>>>>>>> database, per-CPU gets cheaper at a
pretty low number of users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just what is that pretty low number of users?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like just under 100, based on this:
>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enterprise is $19128 per processor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Per server + user CAL price is $6382 + $146/user, so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (19128 - 6382)/146 = 87
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5